Cnty. of Rockland v. Homicki, 227 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Cnty. of Rockland v. Homicki, 227 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fade v. Pugliani/Fade
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Moreover, laches is not applicable to an action at law, and thus may not bar the former husband’s causes of action alleging breach of contract and fraud to the extent they seek money damages (see Matter of County of Rockland v Homicki, 227 AD2d 477, 478 [1996]; Propoco, Inc. v Birnbaum, 157 AD2d 774, 776 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cognetta v. Valencia Developers, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Moreover, because Dana’s cause of action for repayment constituted an action at law, the equitable defense of laches was unavailable to the defendants with respect to this cause of action (see Matter of County of Rockland v Homicki, 227 AD2d 477, 478 [1996]; Propoco, Inc. v Birnbaum, 157 AD2d 774, 776 [1990]).
discussed Cited "see" Roth v. Black Star Publishing Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
However, it is well settled that the doctrine of laches, “which bars recovery where a plaintiffs inaction has prejudiced the defendant and rendered recovery inequitable, has no application in actions at law” (Hilgendorff v Hilgendorff, 241 AD2d 481 ; see Matter of County of Rockland v Homicki, 227 AD2d 477 ; Gonzalez v Chalpin, 159 AD2d 553, 555 , affd 77 NY2d 74 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of County of Rockland
v.
Eugene W. Homicki
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 13, 1996.
227 A.D.2d 477
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, the petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated March 8, 1995, as denied the petition to the extent that any claims for recovery of salary allegedly due to the respondent which arose less than six years prior to the commencement of the respondent’s grievance were not barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations governing contracts.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent’s[*478] claims under a collective bargaining agreement to recover salary which arose less than six years prior to the commencement of his grievance are not barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213). Since the respondent’s claim alleges a breach of a collective bargaining agreement (an action at law), the equitable defense of laches cannot be asserted by the appellants (see, Gonzalez v Chalpin, 159 AD2d 553, 555; Propoco, Inc. v Birnbaum, 157 AD2d 774, 776; Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d 721). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.